The project 'The Roots of Ethnolects' was founded in
2005 by Pieter Muysken from
the Radboud University Nijmegen and
Frans Hinskens from the
Meertens Institute & the VU University Amsterdam. It is mainly funded by the Netherlands
Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO).

Aim

This study aims to explore the roots of ethnolects, which result from the
interaction between second language acquisition, multilingual language use, and
ingroup/outgroup dynamics in urban settings. For this purpose, the interactions
of members of three ethnic groups will be studied in two cities.

Background

Ethnolects can be defined as more or less crystallised, highly variable language
varieties specific to an ethnic group. While 'youth language' is mainly or
merely characterized by lexical peculiarities (cf. Auer
2003[1]), ethnolect
also involve components of the grammar.

There is some discussion whether the notion of ethnolect should be restricted to
immigrant groups. In Danesi's (1985: 118)[3]
conception, an ethnolect is a "variety of a language that results when speakers
of different ethnolinguistic backgrounds attempt to speak the dominant language
(e.g.'Chicano English')", and Ponelis (1997:604)[8]
distinguishes between 'interlectal or allochthonous varieties', and 'matrilectal
varieties'. Others do not take migration as a central basis for ethnolect
formation. Thus McCafferty (2001)[6]
treats religious denomination (viz. Protestant versus Catholic) as ethnic
identity in Northern Ireland.

In
a multi-ethnic society such as the present day Netherlands ethnolects, as
products of language shift (Thomason & Kaufmann 1988[10]),
will doubtlessly gain a considerable role in verbal repertoires - not only of
the speakers for whom Dutch is a second language. Ethnolectal influences have
even been observed among non-immigrants (Kotsinas 1988[5]
for Stockholm, Auer 1999 for Hamburg, Nortier 2001[7]
for Utrecht). The question is through which mechanisms ethnolects emerge,
stabilize and spread. The present project will concentrate on the emergence of
two young ethnolects of Dutch, focusing on phonological and morpho-syntactic
variables.

(a) Which aspects of language use (components of the grammar) characterise
ethnolects as distinct varieties?

(b) To what extent are ethnolects based on local non-standard-varieties?

(c) To what extent are ethnolects based on interference from the original
language of the ethnic group in question?

(d) To what extent can we reduce features of ethnolects to properties resulting
from processes of language acquisition?

(e) Are ethnolects specific for an individual ethnic group, or do they reflect a
more global non-native identity? Are 'uniquely' ethnolectal traits which reflect
a more global non-native identity acquisition-driven?

(f) To what extent can speakers of an ethnolect shift to more standard varieties
and to non-ethnic non-standard varieties?

(g) Is there any evidence of spread of ethnic varieties to peers outside of the
ethnic group? If so, do 'uniquely' ethnolectal traits spread to peers outside
the ethnic networks merely because of their 'covert prestige' or also / rather
because they represent less marked options?

(h) How widely are ethnolects distributed in the country?

(i) To what extent do ethnolects resemble code-switched varieties and contain
overt lexical and grammatical material from several languages?

To answer these questions, We use a structured semi-experimental
factorial design. We examine both natural speech and more controlled
elicitated speech in two cities, Nijmegen and Amsterdam. Our
informants are 10-12 and 18-20 years old males with Dutch, Moroccan
and Turkish backgrounds.

Research context

The development of new varieties out of bilingualism and language
acquisition in ethnic networks and ingroup/outgroup interactions is
addressed in research questions (b), (e), (g) and (f) above. In
connection with question (g) and the fact that ethnolects have been
observed to spread to members of the indigenous population, the
question can be addressed what effect the new ethnic substandards
may eventually have on the maintenance and development of general
urban substandard varieties.

Language Architecture

Architecture is addressed in research question (c). Analyses of the
relative persistence of ethnolectal features make it possible to
determine violable and non-violable properties of the grammar of the
dominant language; do they correspond to the distinction between
core grammar and periphery? Or are ethnolect features mainly to be
understood as transfer products which reinforce already existing
tendencies of the dominant lanquage? Do intermediate or even
'fudged' (Chambers & Trudgill 1998[2])
varieties emerge?

The methodology makes
it possible to systematically study the speakers' use of the different options
in their verbal repertoire, or sets of poly-lectal grammars, in different
interaction settings. Addressed in research questions (c) and (d); the answers
to these questions will render novel insights into processes of transfer of L1
to L2. What is the role of UG and universals of language acquisition (for
phonology cf. e.g. the proposal by Singh 1995[9]
and for syntax e.g. the proposals regarding the Basic Language Variety in
Klein and Perdue 1997[4])
in the emergence of ethnolects? The selection of both 12- and 20 year olds
allows us to study the acquisition of a secondary lect during adolescence.

International perspective

While a number of
researchers have been exploring 'youth language' or 'street language' in
multi-ethnic neighbourhoods in various European
cities, e.g. Pia Quist (Copenhagen), Ben Rampton (London), Ulla-Brit Kotsinas
(Stockholm), Jannis Androutsopoulos (Osnabrück), in addition of course to work
in the Netherlands itself by e.g. Jacomien Nortier (Utrecht) and René Appel
(Amsterdam), the present project is closest in spirit to current work by Peter
Auer and Inci Kirim (Freiburg/Hamburg) and Paul Kerswill and Jenny Cheshire
(Reading/London). In these projects as well as in our own project, a more
systematic study of various structural linguistic variables is carried out.
Peter Auer had co-operated with Pieter Muysken in the ESF Network on
Code-Switching and Language Contact, while Peter Auer and Frans Hinskens founded
and managed the ESF Network on the convergence and divergence of dialects in a
changing Europe, in which Paul Kerswill was active as the coordinator for
England. We have further strengthen our ties, coordinated the selection of
linguistic variables, exchanged fieldwork methods, etc. at a workshop held as
part of the ICLaVE3 conference which took place in Amsterdam, June 23-25, 2005.